Currently, there is a very high birth rate in Africa and in Muslim countries, the average total fertility rate is 4 in Africa and 3,1 in Muslim countries. Africa is projected to have 4 billion people, and MENA 1 billion people. Nigeria alone is projected to have 400 million people in 2050. In most Latino countries, there is a positive birth rate, with the exception of Brasil. Birth rate is positive in India as well. On the other hand, white female TFR in the US is 1.75, in Europe 1.5, in Canada 1.5. The replacement rate is 2.1, and in the event of race mixing, you will need more than 2.1 in order to simply sustain the white population at one level. Even in western countries with relatively high birth rates, the people who are having kids are usually non-white women, as more than 50 percent of US newborn and more than 38 percent of French newborn (1) are already non-white. White female TFR is negative in all western countries. Therefore white people will disappear if they do not change their behavior.

In all feminist countries, you have negative birth rates that could lead to the disappearance of the native population if birth rates are not raised. Whites in the US are projected to disappear in 300 years. In all feminist societies you have massive third-worldization, lowering of IQ, race mixing with blacks, conversions to Islam, etc. The most feminist country in the world – Sweden, is dying right now due to third world/Muslim immigration. (2) Muslims are outbreeding Europeans in almost all European countries. (3)

The Islamisation of Sweden

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=316_1455411063

Barbarism, to parody Lenin, is the last stage of feminism. Sparta, where women became very influential, died due to low birth rate. In decadent Rome, they were ultimately forced to tax single people in order to get them to marry and have kids. Remember what happened to the late Roman Empire - low birth rates, people did not want to get married, men thought that women became unmarriable (38) (Juvenal, Satire 6), infanticide, depopulation, extreme promiscuity, easy divorce, repeal of anti-luxury laws, etc.. Those masses of low IQ people swarming the Europeans are merely the symptom, not the cause. They are just like the opportunistic infection that takes advantage of an already weakened organism. The real cause though, is the weak immune system of the organism.

Luxury corrupts. Feminism is decadent behavior that can only occur in rich and powerful countries, who feel that they are not threatened by anything, and can therefore engage in various types of decadent behaviors that are actually weakening them. J. D. Unwin found that after a nation becomes prosperous, it becomes
increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result
loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, he says,
could be irrevocable. (39) The British historian Sir John Glubb noticed that proto-feminism emerged in the later stages of various civilizations, before they collapsed (20). These are the stages of civilizations:

1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).

2. The age of conquests.

3. The age of commerce.

4. The age of affluence.

5. The age of intellect.

6. The age of decadence. (We are here. Decline could also be observed, as the western share of the world's economy and population is constantly declining, while at the same time the West has become the most indebted region of the world).

The age of Decadence is marked by: Defensiveness (for example by
building border walls), pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of
foreigners, feminisation, the welfare state, a weakening of religion. Decadence is due to: too long a period of wealth and power. Selfishness, love of money, the loss of a sense of duty.

7. The age of decline and collapse.

This is how feminism destroys itself:

1. It destroys itself due to its low, negative birth rates, leading to population decline of the feminised group. (You could clearly observe this in Europe, where there is Islamization going on and European cultures and peoples are dying). In the US, liberal white women are the group with the lowest birth rate and republican states have higher birth rate than liberal states. Coincidentally or not, the white women with the highest birth rate are from countries that banned abortion (Argentina and Ireland), or from religious US states such as Utah. One of the reasons why German women do not want to vote for their anti-immigration party (who wants to increase the german birth rate), is because they don't want to be mothers or to have more than one kid. (4)

2. It destroys itself because it is dysgenic (dumb women have more kids, while smart and career women are often childless). For example 40 percent of German college educated women are childless. (5) This leads to IQ drop. Right now the IQ of western populations is dropping, and east Asian students are now outperforming western students according to PISA surveys, with some eastern european countries now outperforming western countries as well. (6)

Reverse evolution: women in leadership positions are more likely to be childless.

When i saw the Economist’s cover for 2016:

I saw 3 western women on it: Angela Merkel (0 kids), Hillary Clinton (1 kid), and Janet Yellen (1 kid). Do you know what this means? It means that those women are dysgenic. That the future women are not going to look or behave like them. Future women will be probably brown or Muslim, and will be dumber than them. That’s quite ironic. The most successful women today are those with the weakest genes. Therefore they are not successful from evolutionary point of view, and the women of the future are not going to look or behave as they do.

3. It destroys itself because according to various studies, women are less xenophobic, and more foreigner friendly, compared to men. (7) They will welcome everyone. In other words, say hello to the refugee crisis. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, willingly took more refugees per capita (who are mostly young single black and Islamic males) than anyone else in Europe. And many people are calling Germany crazy for taking lots of Muslim refugees. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany. 75 percent of western converts to Islam are women (8), as well as the vast majority of whites who mix with blacks. In Sweden, the more feminist the political party, the more it wants to open the borders. (9) Feminist groups allied themselves with muslims to protest against Donald Trump. (41) The Women's march against Trump demanded open borders (42) Feminist groups such as FEMEN and Pussy Riot are also known to support open borders. (31) Recently, it was found that British women travel to Calais to help refugees and to have sex with them in the "Jungle" migrant camp. Swedish female aid workers are systematically having sex with the refugees. This is happening in many other european countries as well. (26) Do you think that women in Europe do not know that it is mostly young migrant males coming in?

75 percent of converts to Islam are women

Thus feminised groups will open their borders (and their legs) to everyone and everybody, including to more masculine groups who have more kids, leading to the feminised group becoming a minority in its own country. This could be also observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups, such as western Europeans and white north Americans, have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.

Women, in general, have similar behavior to that of minority non-white groups, so they reinforce each other. This could be also called the “women – minority alliance”. You will see lots of similarities between female behavior and minority/third worlder behavior. Such as:
1. Both use similar language – (I'm a victim, I'm oppressed by big bad white males, give me stuff, down with the 1950s!).
2. Demand special quotas and affirmative action for their group.
3. Vote for more taxes/government/welfare, pay a small amount of all taxes, consume the vast majority of welfare, concentrate in big urban centers (where there is stuff to redistribute and infrastructure to exploit), and work mostly in public/government sector jobs.
4. One complains about white privilege, the other complains about male privilege. One complains about "mansplaining", the other complains about "whitesplaining". One strives for "female liberation", the other strives for "black liberation". One demands "female emancipation", the other demands "jewish emancipation". One complains that there aren't enough women in this area, the other complains that there aren't enough minorities in that area. One talks about "gender equality", the other talks about "racial equality". Uses magical words like sexist or racist, in order to obtain positions/stuff/special treatment.
5. Even the US Government classifies women together with minorities (eligible for
better business loan conditions). I guess the US Government thinks that
white women are closer to minorities, than to white men, as they
both need special treatment.

As you can see, the one group empowers the other, there is collusion between them, and they jointly create an environment that is particularly well suited towards parasitism upon white men.

What is interesting to me is that feminisation and third-worldization work together. You often hear the phrase “women and minorities”, “racism and sexism”, "white privilege and male privilege" etc. Those words often come together. There is collusion going on. Why is that? Because women pay only 30 percent of taxes, (10) but receive the vast majority of welfare, pensions and medical care, and benefit from diversity quotas/affirmative action, so they often support other parasitic groups and often work together with them to expand the welfare state and affirmative action/diversity policies.

The more influence women have directly leads to more minority influence, and vice versa, creating a positive "more diversity" feedback loop. There is correlation between the level of female influence in first world societies and the third-worldization of those societies. You will see the opening of borders and the spread of low IQ immigrants in the most feminist societies, such as Sweden, Norway, Canada, Britain, the US, Germany, The Netherlands, etc. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world, which consists of less feminised countries, is more xenophobic, and keeps its borders closed.

Then there is the issue of divided loyalties. Feminism means being
loyal to women first, while ethnic nationalism means being loyal to your
ethnic group first. Feminism could cause a white woman to support a
minority woman against a white man, and put the non-white woman above
the white man. When white women, due to feminism and "sisterhood", feel
closer to non-white women,
than to white men, and turn against their own men, then their group may not survive such treason.
This is why feminism is incompatible with nationalism and the survival of the ethnic group.

"The future is female, the future is brown"

Why is it that low IQ people spread in feminist societies? I mentioned the low birth rate and the dysgenics, but there are other factors behind this as well.

When a bunch of low IQ people move to a feminised country, they will encounter an already existing parasitic environment that is particularly well suited for people like them.

1. When they enter a feminized society, they will find a welfare state and a massive redistribution system (created by women) already in place, a system they could use and exploit too. If they try to move to Turkey, Israel or Japan, they won't find that.

2. They will have greater availability of sex: imagine a group of Sudanese immigrating to more male dominated countries like Israel, Turkey or Japan - local men are not going to allow many of the local women to become the Africans' girlfriends or wives. In contrast, those African migrants will find sex and local women more easily available in feminised countries. Intermarriage will be fully acceptable, there will be plenty of women looking for black lovers (the whole world knows about this sexual fetish of many white western women), and there will be zero reaction or backlash from the local feminised men. British women are even known to travel to Calais' "Jungle" migrant camp in order to have sex with the refugees. Swedish female aid workers are systematically having sex with the refugees. This is happening in many other european countries as well. (26) During the Civil Rights Movement in the US, many white female civil
rights workers slept with Black men because they felt guilty for racism
and wanted to prove loyalty to Black men. (43)

3. They will find lower levels of nationalism and xenophobia in the more feminised countries. They will have easier time getting there and staying there. In contrast, they will be promptly deported from countries such as Israel, Turkey or Japan. Local people will protest against them, will segregate themselves from them, and will create an unpleasant environment for the migrants. If those migrants are religious, they will have a hard time converting the local people to their religion, (these attempts could be met with protests and violence) and easy time in more feminised societies (where for example most of the converts to Islam - 75 percent, are local women, who often convert in order to marry a Muslim or due to Muslim boyfriend). And, as mentioned above, there will be greater acceptance for intermarriage with the migrants in more feminised western countries.

4. When low IQ people move to more feminised countries, they find an already existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly well suited for people like them. Women there already complain that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and affirmative action, that they should be given stuff via the welfare system, via special (without competitive bidding) government contracts and loans (27), via special grants and scholarships for women and minorities, or via alimony and divorce. Obviously that environment will be great for low IQ "Give me, Give me, I'm Victim" people as well and they too will join the party and start behaving that way (until there are too many takers and the whole redistribution system collapses). In contrast, low IQ migrants won't find a parasitic environment like that in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or is going to give them anything.

Basically, many women and minorities have similar (parasitic) behavior and similar (more government, more affirmative action, more quotas, more taxes, more redistribution, more welfare, more “give me, give me”) goals. (44) They also both fear potential white male violence, both complain about "too many white men" dominating this area or that area, or how a certain sector is "too male and pale", and both shout "down with the 1950s!". If you look at political parties who support feminism, you will
notice that they also support more minority influence, and vice versa. For example the Canadian election where female supported liberal Justin Trudeau won
resulted in both more women and more minorities in Parliament and in the
Government. (29)

Trudeau, who calls himself a feminist, implemented quotas for women in government, said that Canada has no core culture, and pledged that Canada will always remain open for refugees, even for those rejected by the US. The UK Labour Party, the only British party with all women shortlists for MPs, is also the most pro-immigration British party, promising to "rub the right's noses in diversity", and has both more women and more minority candidates for MPs than any other UK party. The parties more supportive of feminism (liberals, greens, or outright feminist parties)
are also more supportive of open borders, immigration, various gender/minority quotas,
and the importation of refugees. (9) (30)

Many female volunteers, such as this one, were found to be having sex with the refugees

Femen goes black

It is increasingly believed among the Left that there is an intersectional web of
"oppression" involving race, sex, class, nation and sexual orientation, that all "oppression", for example racism and sexism, is connected, and that multiple groups should band together and complain that they are "oppressed" by white men.
This is the natural outgrowth of the quest for "equality": women
say "we should be equal" and then the other races, ethnic and sexual minorities all say
"me too!"

The Women's march against Trump also demanded immigration and open borders, claiming that "no human being is illegal". (42) Meanwhile, non-white feminists are turning against white feminists using the same methods they used on men.

Citation begins:
"Many thousands of women are expected to converge
on the nation’s capital
for the Women’s March on Washington the day after Donald J. Trump’s
inauguration. “Yes, equal pay is an issue,” Ms. Sarsour said. “But look at the ratio
of what white women get paid versus black women and Latina women.”
For too long, the march organizers said, the women’s rights movement
focused on issues that were important to well-off white women only.

Jennifer Willis no longer plans to attend. “This
is a women’s march,” she said. “We’re supposed to be allies in
equal pay, marriage, abortion. Why is it now about, ‘White women don’t
understand black women’?" (40)

Well, Jennifer, when you talk about "i'm
victim, i'm
oppressed, give me stuff" don't get surprised when others start talking
like that too. And that they may have higher status in the victim
hierarchy than you. You targeted white men with this type of parasitic reasoning,
now non-whites are going to target you using your own methods. At least you taught them well.

So basically white men in the West are getting attacked by a coalition of many of their own women working together with minorities. (25)

Against racism, against sexism: the coalition of minorities.

"We should agree to become a minority in our own country, and that is a good thing."

Female influence in society correlates with the level of nationalism/xenophobia in society.
The more nationalist countries are those with more male influence and no feminism, such as Israel (in many ways Israel is culturally similar to the US of the 60s), Eastern European countries, Muslim countries, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, etc. while, as mentioned above, the more liberal and "tolerant" countries are those with more female influence, such as those from Western Europe and North America.

In more male dominated societies, such as Israel, Japan, Muslim countries, or Western countries in the past, marrying out is/was illegal or is very rare. Israeli Jews, for example, are not allowed to marry non-Jews. (13) In the past, when western countries were less feminised and therefore more xenophobic, anti-miscegenation laws were wide spread. In the more masculine past, it was very hard for a western woman to marry a black man or to convert to Islam. The social pressure against such behavior was huge. As western societies became more feminised, they became more tolerant of foreigners, and acceptance for "marrying out" and mixed marriages has increased. (24) Greater support for female suffrage and gender equality correlates with greater support for interracial marriage. (37)

Do you think it is a coincidence that western societies became more liberal and opened their borders in the 60s, exactly the decade when contraception became widely available, women were freed from the burden of having multiple kids and entered the work force and politics en masse, and female influence exploded? I don't think so.

"We white people are privileged"

One woman's strength is helping refugees in Macedonia

This is because:
1. Studies show that women are more friendly toward foreigners/people who are not in their group, and care less about their own people/ethnicity/group. Men are tribal, women are relational. Men understand well human group relations, women - personal relations.

Men are experts at forming groups - millitias, armies, gangs, biker groups, vigilantes, tribes, etc. Women, not so much. Much research indicates that
human social organization consists of males in large groups and females
in smaller groups or interacting with individuals. Men more easily participate in
coalitions organized to mete out violence, a tendency enhanced in the
presence of intergroup competition. Men’s coalitions require lower
levels of investment and can persist for longer in the face of within
group conflict than women’s coalitions. The vast majority of the people in far right groups are men. Nationalism and tribalism are
group activity, this is why men, who are experts at forming groups and are more xenophobic than women, also
historically dominated nationalism and tribalism.

Among children and adolescents, female play-groups tend to emphasize close (and often dyadic) interpersonal interactions (with relatives, friends), while male play-groups emphasize coordinated teams and large groups (tribes). Mastering nature and the environment, hunting, conquering, and protecting, something traditionally done by
men, required emphasis on larger groups and coordinated teams (tribes). Finding (and keeping) a
quality man and raising children, something traditionally done by women,
required emphasis on close, often dyadic, interpersonal interactions. And now you know why women (who are relational) tend to watch soap operas, while men (who are tribal) tend to watch football (and riot for their team).

Human males forming large groups

Studies show that women are less likely to put their personal desires aside in order to help their group, and less willing to take risks on behalf of their group. Basically, women are loyal to close people who directly benefit them. Men, in comparison, are also loyal to people with common identity (their tribe). In other words, women have Circle of Friends, while men see themselves as Members of a Group. (7)

2. They show that women are more willing to donate to foreigners in need (women are more altruistic towards foreigners/refugees in need). It follows that a country with lots of female influence should be more altruistic towards foreigners. (19)

3. They show that women are more egalitarian than men. (Definition of egalitarian: Someone who believes in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life, and advocates for the removal of inequalities among people). White women have significantly more favorable attitudes toward affirmative action, compared to white men. (28)

4. They show that women are less conservative, less “racist”, less xenophobic, and less capitalist than men. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives. (7) (22)

5. They show that men try to create hierarchical society, while women try to create "equal" society. Research suggests that men tend to exhibit much greater preferences for group-based systems of social hierarchy than women. Across cultures, time and samples, self-report survey research has
consistently demonstrated that, on average, men display more xenophobic
and ethnocentric attitudes than do women. In a related theme, research suggests that men may more strongly identify with their tribal group memberships than do women. For example, men are more likely to associate their favourite colour
with an ingroup, such as their favourite sports team or their country's
flag,
and are also more likely to complete the statement ‘I am…’ with a group
membership role, such as indicating that they are a member of a certain group. Men are also more likely than women to dehumanize outgroup members, such as by describing them using animal-typical words.

Across a variety of different cultures, research has demonstrated that
men consistently score higher on SDO (Social Dominance Orientation) than do women, suggesting that men
have stronger preferences for group-based hierarchy. Importantly, scores on SDO tend to be positively associated with a wide
variety of social attitudes and ideologies that tend to legitimize
existing hierarchical systems, including social conservatism, racism and
patriotism.

Many of the policies and ideologies that males support, including militarism, "racism" and patriotism, have to do with the "domination" of one social group (e.g. nation or race) over another. Many of the politics and ideologies that females support, including social welfare programmes, affirmitive action, and social equality, would increase the outcomes of "lower-status" groups such as women, LGBT people, the poor or blacks. In the most abstract terms, the former kinds of policies and beliefs serve to promote group-based social hierarchy, and the latter kind serve to attenuate it. (36)

So in virtually all western feminized countries, you will see those things happening:

1. Economic decline – as share of world GDP. For example Western Europe accounted for 28% of global economic output in 1950 and in 1970. By 1990, this had fallen to 24% and stands at 19% today. A Citigroup forecast suggests it will shrink to 11% by 2030 and 7% by 2050. Similar economic decline is occurring in the US. For the first time in 250 years, a non-western country (China) is projected to become the world's largest economy, and to have an economy twice as large as that of the US. Asia alone is projected to account for 50 percent of the world's economy in 2050. According to European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, Europe is in severe decline, and in 20 years not a single european country will be part of the top 7 economies of the world, with Europe's population projected to become only 4 percent of the world's population. (11)

2. Older and declining native population. At the end of the 19th century, white people accounted for 30 percent of the world's population. After their feminisation, whites
are now down to less than 15 percent of the world's population, and are
projected to become less than 10 percent of it in 2050.

3. Massive third-worldization and foreign (Jewish) infiltration (that infiltration happens easily because females are significantly less xenophobic than males, hence a feminized society will be less xenophobic and more friendly towards foreigners).

4. IQ decline caused by low IQ immigration, and by dysgenic behavior (highly educated women are more likely to be childless compared to less educated women).

It is quite interesting that Jews, who are supposed to be smart, are not willing to implement feminism in Israel, and have large and stable families, very high birth rate (more than 3 kids per woman), few single mothers, higher marriage rate, and lower divorce rate compared to the average westerner. (12) A woman without a man in Israel is seen as something to be remedied; a woman without children – an aberration to be pitied. A Jewish woman in Israel is not allowed to marry a Muslim, and there are vigilante groups looking for women dating arabs (13) (while 75 percent of converts to Islam in the US and UK are local women). There are few women in the Israeli Government and Parliament. I wonder why is that? Maybe because feminism is not good for the Jews (but is good for the destruction of white people of European descent)?

There is very high marriage rate in Israel (almost everyone marries), and a very low level of cohabitation without marriage. Only 5 percent of Israeli kids are born to mothers who are not married, compared to 40-50 percent in the West. (14) The number of israeli single mothers is small as well (13 percent compared to 30 - 40 percent in the West). Why is marriage important? Unmarried women tend to vote for the left, married women – for the right. Unlike women though, both married and single men vote right. In the US 2012 election, 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Obama, while the majority of married women voted against Obama. In the 2016 election, women who were under the guidance of men (married women) voted right. Single women - those who were left to their own devices and their own female nature, voted left. (15) (35)

Therefore a society with a high marriage rate (like Israel, or Poland, or Japan) will tend to be more nationalist and more right wing, and societies with low marriage rate, such as western societies, will tend to be more liberal. Single mothers for example are a major supporter of the Left and the Welfare State. Various studies show that the kids of single mothers perform worse in life than the kids of normal families. Marriage therefore supports societal unity and cohesion, causes a society to become more right wing, and decreases the need for a welfare state and the parasitism that comes with it.

Single white women are more opposed to border wall than Asians, blacks, or even Hispanics are.

If you want to get rid of white people, then it makes sense to promote feminism among them. First, it will lead to negative birth rates and it will destroy the family unit. Second, it will lead to more tolerance for immigration and open borders. Third, it will divide and destabilise the targeted ethnic group, and will turn the women and the men of that group against each other. And fourth, women will hardly care about the presence of Jews in the midst of their society, since women are less xenophobic than men. So I don't think that it is a coincidence that the people who are on record saying they want to get rid of white people of European descent are also supporting feminism in western countries (but not in their own country).

Nationalism correlates with the level of female influence in society. More male influence - more nationalism. More female influence - less nationalism. Men are the immune system of society. They react against invaders and parasitism. Women do not. No wonder our Jewish friends do everything possible to attack male influence in society, the way the HIV virus attacks the immune system of the body. After the HIV virus destroys the immune system, then various bacteria and parasites move in, and then the body dies.

A feminized society will be more tolerant and accepting society, while a masculinized society will be a more nationalist society. It is not a coincidence that Sweden, the most feminized country on the planet, took more refugees per capita than anyone else. There is only one anti-immigration party there (Swedish Democrats) and women were only 36 percent of its voters; the same is true for most anti-immigration parties in Europe. Women are 40 percent of UKIP voters and only 37 percent of AFD voters. Norway's FRP has more than 80 percent more male than female voters. (16) Recently, the majority of Austrian women voted for a pro-immigration President, against the vote of their men. (23) In Canada, Justin Trudeau's Liberals, who promised to import muslim refugees, lead among women, while Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who want to ban the burka, lead among men. (30) And in the US, of course, it is well known that Donald Trump, the only presidential candidate who said that he will do something about immigration, receives far higher support from men than from women. (21)

Meanwhile, international polls show that pro-immigration politicians such as Barack
Obama, Hillary Cinton and Angela Merkel get the highest support in the most feminised
countries, such as Sweden. In Western Europe, women love Obama and hate Trump. (32) Women in Germany are highly supportive of politicians such as Angela Merkel, who opened Germany's borders to the Third World. German women (35 percent) were found to be far less receptive to nationalist "populism", compared to german men (65 percent). (34) US college women were found to be more liberal than US college men. Among white men, the US Republican Party holds a wide 61% to 32% advantage in leaned party identification. Among white women, about as many registered voters identify as
Republican or lean toward the Republican Party (47%) as say they
identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (46%). (35) Finally, contrary to popular myths, in terms of voting patterns, a higher proportion of male voters supported the Nazi party compared to female voters. (45)

Have a look at pro-immigration demonstration (lots of women)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c3_1442068850

and an anti-immigration demonstration (few women)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a6b_1442695250

Look at Black Lives Matter events: you will notice more white women, than white men.

But you will see few women on anti-Islam demonstrations, such as those of PEGIDA.

The men-women ratio in most nationalist demonstrations is 6-7 to 1

So white women are not going to fix the islamization/third-worldization problems that the West faces, since, in many ways, they caused those problems in the first place, via “child-free” behavior causing negative birth rates (below population replacement rate), political support for “tolerance”, “multiculturalism”, the welfare state, dysgenic behavior (highly educated women are more likely to be childless compared to less educated women), and due to the fact that they often ally with ethnic minorities against their own men.

Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) results in what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”, border chaos.

In nature, when you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. You can observe this among lions, among primates, or among europeans. After feminist women (with the encouragement of jews) weakened their own men, then other men (muslims) started moving in. Males are the immune system of society. The nationalism that they create is the wall. Without them, there is no nationalism or resistance to foreigners. Weaken them, and then other foreigners, often males, start moving in.

Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and
female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not
care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to
the feminised group opening their borders, trying to help anyone in need, accepting anyone in, and
eventually becoming a minority in their own country.

Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Women are less likely to support military action even against ISIS, a
group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and are less likely to support ban on muslim immigration. (33) Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females (17). Psychological research suggests that women might display a tend-and-befriend response in coping with threats. Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed – whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. (18) Men form tribes. Women join tribes.

So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution (from men) and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group. (19)
Therefore, dear westerners, say hello to the Refugee Crisis. It's not going to end any time soon.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that Jews are supporting feminism for western countries, but do not support it for their own country.

My theory is that if you want to destroy an ethnic group, simply increase female influence in that group. Increase it a lot. And voila. Since females don’t care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open it’s borders, will try to help anyone in need, and will welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also get a negative birth rate for the feminized host group.

All kinds of other ethnic, religious and racial groups will move in, and will start vying for dominance; as for the feminized host group, its fate is to become a minority in its own country, to mix with the foreigners, and then to ultimately disappear.

29
comments:

Just to clarify, this post was not written by me, the main author of this blog, but by Passer-by, who had made some of the same points in a comment. I thought the case he had made was very interesting and deserved to be presented more fully.

Yes, thank you Passer-by for this amazing exegesis, I think thought-provoking is an understatement; it's more like a pamphlet by Paine, a call to arms for Western European men to reign in their women and start repopulating.

We have the combined forced of the elites in the media, government and academia arrayed against us however. Today I read a sad statistic by Pat Buchanan, white men in the US have gone from being virtually half the population to about 31%. That is clear evidence of ethnic cleansing but will anyone report it?

Thanks again Passer-by, and you Cheradenine for the great opinion pieces (although they're backed by citations too!)

I'm just a normal guy that researched the issue about feminisation, there is nothing special about me. I do not think that personality matters that much, for me the most important thing is the truth. I'm just happy that i managed to find what causes the decline of western peoples, and how this could be fixed.

Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other tribes. Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter results in what we see—open borders, multiculture, diversity

While agreeing with your general argument, Britain’s borders were opened up to the Third World in 1948, before the era of feminism. There were some Jews involved but their activities could easily have been thwarted had Britain not been governed by men who had evolved to be traitors.

I think the process is gradual. More female influence should lead to more immigration and less resistance to it. When you have a society with greater xenophobia and high enough birth rate, it is harder to push for immigration, plus industrialists have lower need for migrant workers in that case.

Also it is interesting to me that the big opening of borders to non-whites in the US, Australia and Canada happened during the 60s, exactly the decade when contraception became widely available, birth rates plummeted, women entered the work force and politics en masse, and female/liberal influence exploded. Jews recognize that Feminism in the West is their ally, that's why they are pushing for it.

But immigration is driven by various components, and the feminization, resulting in lower birth rates and less nationalist society is only one of those components.

Other components behind immigration are as you said jewish influence, as well as the drive for cheap labor.

So even in more nationalist, xenophobic societies there could be some non-white immigration (the US for example imported some Chinese workers well before female suffrage), but there will be also more resistance to it.

(I deleted my previous comment due to grammatical mistakes in it, i see no edit button so deleting and then posting my comment again was the only option. Sorry for that.)

Feminsim is the begining of the end of every civilization. They're just to dumb to understand that they are extingishing their own culture. They are TRAITORS. They must be treated as traitors. They r just pervert women who want to fuck with everyone and don't care about killing their own chils because "its their right" to do so. Pathetic ...

I was reading Tony Judt's book "Postwar" recently. He mentioned that deaths in war led to imbalanced male-female ratios in many countries. And, consequently, many children grew up without a male figure in the household. This could have been a factor in the feminisation process. As well as the possible eugenic effect that the men who died in the war may have been disproportionately "masculine" i.e. the more aggressive warrior types may have been the first to die.

Yes, i read about this several times. I think this is one of the reasons. But there are other reasons too. WW2 basically broke westerners psychologically, especially the men. Since then, they are always afraid of being called a racist, or called a sexist. Nowhere else in the world you will see such weakened men. Apologising for themselves, and feeling guilty.

Nowhere else the men are afraid to be called a racist or a sexist. So feminism also occured due to weak men, allowing it to happen. Since nowhere else in the world the men feel guilty,(and can be used by appealing to their guilt), it is very hard for feminism to occur in other countries.

The other reasons are being rich and being powerful for too long. Those things lead to decadence and decadent behavior. When you become number one, you no longer care about competition, you become a hedonist and start thinking about redistribution, building utopias, etc.

And the third problem, i think, is the natural feeling of superiority of white women, that misfired against white men.

Imagine you are a white woman. White people became the richest and more powerful group in the world. So what is the only problem that remains? White men. They are the only ones above you. They are no longer needed to provided security and high standart of living, so they are becoming a problem. They are number one in the world, and that is unacceptable. Women should not be number two, they should be number one instead.

So basically white women attacked their own men and sided with minorities due to envy and jealousy of their own men.

The old order was this:1 White men.2 White women.3 Minorities.4 Non-white Foreigners.

After white women were given everything, and felt rich and secure, they decided that the old order to longer suits them. They decided that they will no longer tolerate being number 2.

So they made a coalition with minorities, in order to overturn the old order. So now they are trying to create a new order, that is this:

1. White men = white women = minorities = non-white foreigners.

Basically, they preferred to be in a coalition with non-whites, and to be on top (although temporarily, but i think they are blinded by envy, so they do not consider the long term consequences of their behavior), than to be together with their men, and to be number two. I think that this could be also called a treason. They decided to side with the foreigners, so that they are (temporarily) in the position of number one, instead of being with their men, in the position of number 2.

This dynamic can not happen among non-white people, because they do not think that they are all powerful. Hence you can not have real feminism among non-whites.

For a jewish women, the biggest problem are white europeans (or palestinian arabs), so she feels closer to jewish men, than to arab women or european women.

For a black woman, the biggest problem are white people, so she feels closer to black men, than to white women.

And for asians, the biggest problem is that they are not number one, and are overshadowed by europeans. Therefore asian women do not feel solidarity with white women, who are their competitor for the first place, and are overshadowing them. So feminism could not occur in Asia, non unless Asia becomes number one in the world, and nothing else is threatening them.

For a chinese woman, for example, the most important issue is for China to become a rich country, and number one country, and for chinese people to become the most powerful people in the world, replacing europeans, with chinese women becoming the most desirable women across the world. Only then, when chinese people are on top, could feminism occur in China, and chinese women could start thinking that their own men are their biggest problem and competitor.

The third reason is jewish presence in the West, a huge number of the most important western feminists are jewish women.

So, we could sum the reasons for the occurrence of feminism in the West.1. The world wars killed lots of men, some of them very masculine.2. World War Two broke whites psychologically. They started to be afraid that nationalism could cause another big war and carnage. So they started to feel guilty and to apologise for being a racist, nationalist, sexist, etc. This weakness created a void that was filled by women.

3. Major Jewish influence in the feminist movement.

4. Whites were rich and powerful for too long. This leades to decadent behavior. Just read the roman poet Juvenal, who lived at the height of Roman power:"Don’t Marry""You’re Mad To Marry""Chastity Has Vanished""What brought this monstrous behaviour about, what’s its sourceYou ask? Their lowly status used to keep Latin women chaste,Hard work kept the corruption of vice from their humble roofs,And lack of rest, and their hands, then, were chafed and hardened.

From handling Tuscan fleeces, when Hannibal neared Rome,When their husbands manned the towers at the Colline Gate.Now we suffer the ills of a long peace. Worse for us than warThis luxury’s stifling us, taking its revenge for an empire won.No single kind of crime or act of lust has been lacking, fromThe moment we were no longer poor: all vice pours into Rome,it was filthy lucre at first that brought these alien morals here,Effete wealth that’s corrupted the present age with revoltingDecadence."http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/JuvenalSatires6.htm

"Female influence in society correlates with the level of nationalism/xenophobia in society. The more nationalist countries are those with more male influence and no feminism, such as Israel (in many ways Israel is culturally similar to the US of the 60s), Eastern European countries, Muslim countries, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, etc. while, as mentioned above, the more liberal and "tolerant" countries are those with more female influence, such as those from Western Europe and North America.

Israeli Jews, for example, are not allowed to marry non-Jews. (13) In the past, when western countries were less feminised and more xenophobic, anti-miscegenation laws were wide spread. As western societies became more feminised, acceptance for "marrying out" and mixed marriages has increased. (24)"

This is like to say we need to be ethnic supremacists and primeval barbarians to avoid becoming modern barbarians.

No thanks. There must be another way. A way that's not paved with shame and is intelligent.

Yes there is. Look at Eastern Europe. Look at Japan. Israel is a poor example and it's disgusting that the best the author can do for an example is the world's biggest and most well-armed terrorist organisation. I'm far right and pro-Palestine. This is quite common among male, far-right truthers such as James Perloff, Michael Hoffman and Brother Nathaniel. It's men like these that can show us the way. "You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."

Also, the author's blind acceptance of eugenics and Darwinist snake-oil is worrying as well. I think he could do better. These truthers I mentioned also expose Darwinism and eugenics as dangerous hoaxes. Israel also has the most comprehensive eugenics program in the world today. I actually recently did a post on my own blog about eugenics. Check it out at http://serb101.blogspot.co.nz/2017/05/why-altrights-love-affair-with-eugenics.html

Preserving your own people and cultural heritage is not "supremacism", it is something normal. All groups try to do that. No one says that you should take over the world or something like that. Simply put, all groups should have their own countries. So this isn't about "lording over others" or "supremacy", etc.

You sound brainwashed. The jews and east asians are not barbarians, they are the people with the highest IQ on this world. And they do not believe in immigration and massive ethnic mixing, they believe in preserving their own people and their own culture.

If the jews, who are the smartest people on this world, could believe in nationalism and ethnocentrism, and think that this is the way to progress, then europeans could believe in that too.

Is there a correlation with feminization and the concept of Human Rights? I mean, besides the other points mentioned.

Curiously, Mary Wollstonecraft (who wrote Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) and is considered by feminists to be their founding document) was the mother of Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein.

Later though, in the later stage of feminised soceity, the correlation becomes negative, because having too much human rights becomes a problem, just like eating too much food causes obesity, and drinking too much water could drown you. Many people forget that life is not only about rights, but also about responsibilites. If you want to live a pleasant, hedonistic life, with all kinds of rights, but not responsibilities (such as having a good number of children), and everyone is like that, then that society will self-destroy due to lack of children.

When you give rights to your enemies, or to those who parasitise upon society, or to those who seek to fragment society and side with its enemies, the result could be fatal.

A very simple example could be this.Poor society -> expanding society -> rich society -> feminised society (more rights) -> low birth rates, open borders for enemies (muslims), the spread of low IQ people -> a decline of that society -> third world society ->(no rights).

Here is an interesting article about this issue -

Empathobesity: too much of a good thing? The Rise and Decline of the West: Why and Whereupon.

My point is what would happen if white men stopped believing in human rights (nobody else does). That human rights is a social construct or a kind of god, really. Then we'd have to say, Sorry everybody, it's a false god, hah-hah. What we really meant was we believe in privilege, obligation, custom, freedom of association, Golden Rule, sacred European myths and divine order. What would happen?

Apparently this phenomenon has been recognised and studied by academics. They even have a jargon term for it: the "Radical Right Gender Gap". Some of the studies purport to show that female attitudes on opposition to immigration, support for authoritarianism, disregard for democracy, etc. are not significantly different from those of men; which, if true, means women are put off voting for patriotic parties for some other reason.

I haven't assimilated all of this yet but I might make a post about it when I have.

Thanks. Bear in mind that i also added some new links, so you can check them out, there are some interesting infos there. I also added some small texts to the article.

As far as i'm aware the vast majority of studies show greater xenophobia in men. Here is one of the latest studies/articles that i added for example -

"Many of the policies and ideologies that males support, including militarism, "racism" and patriotism, have to do with the "domination" of one social group (e.g. nation or race) over another. Many of the politics and ideologies that females support, including social welfare programmes, affirmitive action, and social equality, would increase the outcomes of "lower-status" groups such as women, LGBT people, the poor or blacks. In the most abstract terms, the former kinds of policies and beliefs serve to promote group-based social hierarchy, and the latter kind serve to attenuate it."

Greater support for female suffrage and gender equality correlates with greater support for interracial marriage and gay marriage.http://www.newgeography.com/content/004120-the-geography-cultural-attitudes

Women are naturally less aggressive than men, they have less testosteron. They are also more agreeable. While there are plenty of cases where groups of men fought other groups of men, there are no cases in human history where women fought other large groups of women. So clearly there are large psyhological differences between men and women, driven by hormones, or genes. Among monkeys for example, it is male monkeys who often form groups, patrol the perimeter, and fight other male monkey groups. "Demonic Males" is interesting book, that explores the topic of male violence and the male ability to form coalitions among monkeys.

"Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence is a 1997 book by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson examining the evolutionary factors leading to human male violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males

It appears that there is not only difference in the level of xenophobia, but difference in the ability for forming human groups, and difference in their cohesion. Men are group creatures, women are more into the realm of personal relations, as studies in the article show. Boys often paly group games, of the type "cowboys and indians", "police and criminals"," terrorists and counterterrorists", etc. Females often form dyadic relationships and small, non cohesive groups.

Those two are different things. It is one thing to be xenophobic, and it is another thing to be able to form large and cohesive groups. In order to have lots of far right participation from women, you need not only xenophobia, but also the ability to form groups. This behavior and preference for groups is detected among infants, so it is not affected by propaganda among adults.

"Social organization of a species influences myriad facets of individuals’ behavior. Much research indicates that human social organization consists of males in large groups and females in smaller groups or interacting with individuals. This study analyzed the initial factors that produce greater preferences for groups by human male versus female infants. To this end, using a looking preference paradigm, fifty-nine 6–8-month-old infants viewed individual versus group images of actual children. On the basis of several controls, results demonstrated that male more than female infants are attracted to the complex level of stimulation provided by groups. "

"group dynamics have consequences for unit cohesion and combat performance. Men more easily participate in coalitions organized to mete out violence, a tendency enhanced in the presence of intergroup competition. Men’s coalitions require lower levels of investment and can persist for longer in the face of within group conflict than women’s coalitions."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2256051

Men are experts at forming groups - millitias, gangs, vigilantes, etc. Women, not so much. Even if you get some right wing women, they do not form groups the way men do. They are not group creatures. Nationalism and tribalism are group activity, this is why men, who are experts at forming groups, also dominated tribalism and nationalism. So it is not only the level of xenophobia that is important, but also the ability to form large and cohesive groups.

Also, it appears that the lower level of xenophobia among females is cross cultural phenomenon. For example amomg east asians, it is mostly women who opt for race mixing. There are lots of bitter east asian men over that behavior of east asian women - who basically fall over themselves in order to get a white man, and to assimilate into western culture. In Israel, as far as i'm aware, it is mostly jewish women who go for arabs.

The difference in xenophobia i suspect is caused by evolutionary reasons - usually when the invaders come, they kill or enslave the men, and take the women. Women who resist will not reproduce, women who join the conquerors will be genetically successful. Historically, women were also often kidnapped, so this is why Stokholm syndrom is more common in women.

I suspect that the difference in xenophobia and intragroup aggression (male groups vs male groups, but no female groups vs female groups) is also caused by different reproductive strategies. I see groups of males as genetic strains competing with each other. They form groups - tribes. Just like male lions and male monkeys fight each other, and then females accept the winner, in the same way groups of men - tribes fight eact other over the question whos genes will make it in the future.

Also there is a third aspect - regardless of levels of xenophoboa, female behavior empowers other minority groups. It is increasingly believed among the Left that there is an intersectional web of "oppression" involving race, sex, class, nation and sexual orientation, that all "oppression", for example racism and sexism, is connected, and that multiple groups should band together and complain that they are "oppressed" by white men. This is the natural outgrowth of the quest for "equality" and against "oppression": women say "we should be equal" or "i'm oppressed" and then the other races, ethnic and sexual minorities all say "me too!"

So when females behave like that, others see that, and start behaving like that too.

The book and the study are very recent - from 2015 - 2016. Studying gender-nationalism issues is mostly a recent thing.

The blog is great, but its obviously not mainstream - its just a blog. Still, they managed to understand that this is an important topic, and concentrated on it, so they are smart guys/gals. They managed to capture the niche about gender-nationalism interactions.

Ok, i checked the study - "Patterns of Prejudice" and this is my answer to it:

The authors claim that the radicalism of far right parties is causing women not to support them, but otherwise women are just as prejudiced as men. Yet polling data shows that even without the mediator of a far party, according to various polls, women are less likely to support the building of a wall on the US-Mexican border, less likely to support a ban on muslim immigration, less likely to support military action against ISIS, that women are less racist than men, women are less xenophobic than men, and more supportive of gay rights issues, minority issues, and affirmitive action. Moreover, highly feminised countries, such as Sweden, are those most supportive of politicians such as Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Hillary Clinton.

Polling data contradicts the assertion of the authors: if women were as prejudiced as men, but the problem for them was just that far right parties were too radical/too extreme for women, then why are women not showing their prejudice in the various polling data? And why are women strongly supportive of pro-immigration parties and politicians? For example the majority of the voters for Green parties, who are some of the most pro-immigration parties, are women. German women are highly supportive of politicians such as Angela Merkel, who opened Germany's borders to the Third World.

If women were as prejudiced as men, but the probem for them was just that far right parties were too radical/too extreme for them, then women also shouldn't vote for pro-immigration parties and politicians, and abstain from voting instead. After all, it does not make sense for prejudiced people, who are against immigration, to vote for pro-immigration parties, even if they do not like the local far right party. Yet this is exactly what happened in Austria - the supposedly prejudiced women voted for a pro-immigration President. In Germany, the pro-immigration green party gets far more votes from women than from men. In Canada, Justin Trudeau's Liberals, who promised to import muslim refugees, lead among women, while Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who want to ban the burka, lead among men. Therefore, possible dislike for the local far right party can not explain why the supposedly prejudiced women voted for a pro-immigration party, instead of abstaining. And again, possible dislike for the local far right party can not explain why highly feminised countries, such as Sweden, are highly supportive of pro-immigration politicians, such as Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Hillary Clinton.

The #1 way to destroy a culture is to give free shit to mothers. It is how white colonialism destroyed native cultures all across the world. Free shit for mothers, freeze the men out of the picture. Within a couple of generations, the culture is dead and forgotten.

Good points. However you could leave the eugenics nonsense and Darwinist pseudo-science out though. Eugenics is part of the agenda known as "depopulation" and it ties in with the New World Order's (NWO's) "climate change" hoax designed to further the goals of globalism and communism worldwide.

This not only is to destroy the West bout also to kill off most of humanity regardless of colour. It also includes abortion, which you mention in your post. Eugenicists are usually pro-abort, so in arguing for eugenics, you are essentially arguing for abortion. Abortion is also part of the agenda and of feminism.

Darwinism is pseudo-science intended to weaken the major underpinning of Western society... Christianity. It paved the way for the current degeneracy we see in the West today.

I will never understand the alt-right's love affair with a pseudo-science intended to lead to humanity's destruction regardless of race or religion. People like you who faithfully and blindly parrot off this eugenics snake-oil need to wake up, do some research and stop selling this snake-oil to the rest of us.

For more in depth discussion of why eugenics is wrong and why the alt-right should not be supporting it see a blog post I recently wrote about eugenics. Visit http://serb101.blogspot.co.nz/2017/05/why-altrights-love-affair-with-eugenics.html. Good luck and God bless.